With reference to LIRR 39, the MTA of NY State has done everything in its power to obliterate the individual character of the LIRR. They have expressed no interest in steam operations on what is perceived to be a high-density commuter run. Without repeating a litany of finger pointing, the best chances to see a G5s under steam is at the Mecca of PRR steam designs right now, well, about 45% of it.

I am very, very, "pro" restoration for both LIRR 39 and 35, so I'll stand by my recommendations for getting both locomotives into the hands of capable restorers. You need a steam knowledgeable director who is not afraid to get out and make the contacts, act as a speaker, get turned down, and go right back out. You need a grant writer who is not on salary, but who looks for every conceivable source and makes a case. You absolutely need to show evidence of ongoing achievement and completion of assigned work. You need to get serious about making the locomotive the single priority of the organization. Both OBRM and RMLI have expansive collections of equipment that require annual (deserved) attention.

It might be a good idea to break this discussion into an entirely new thread. I believe this started around Strasburg 7312. BTW, how's the popcorn?

Our NESCO CMO reminds me periodically, "Dick, if it was easy, somebody would have done it."

Mr. Glueck - You posted some very on-point comments about 39 and I agree, you should have posted them as a new topic. If you did not post your comments I would have never posted my reply. Hopefully the mods can break your post and other 39-related posts out into a new thread.

I agree with the challenges you highlighted regarding the current effort. Their strategy to restore and operate 39 outside of the LI community makes fundraising even more difficult because it minimizes the educational, cultural, and economic benefit to the residents of LI and thus minimizes any perceived return on investment by the community.

I know this strategy was born out of necessity given the situation on LI and with the MTA. Opting for a professional static restoration and arranging for prominent indoor display may have been a better long-term bet for the preservation of the artifact and may have possibly been a good way to lay the groundwork and gain support for future rail preservation work on LI.

As an aside, in terms of prominent indoor display on LI, I am disappointed that it appears that none of the LI groups tried to get in on the development at Belmont. With the new hockey arena, the existing horse track, and the new LIRR station, that would have been a great place for an indoor equipment display telling the story of steam railroading on LI.

In the marketplace of rail preservation, the projects that deserve support are those that are the most well run and which are the most transparent to their donors.

I do not eat popcorn. Tried it once and it tasted as I'd imagine styrofoam would taste. Besides, if one is breathing heavily, it seems one would choke on it very easily.

Stay calm and steam on, eh?

.

Hi
Thank you, Mr. Anderson
For answering my question on the above post, I do appreciate your answer. At least now I have the true answer, Thank you Again Pat.

I feel like I'm more interested in Strasburg than most... (probably my favorite of all the lines... Durango is close but the care and detail Strasburg has taken into all of the work they have done knocks em into #1 in my book) but I didn't know this information! Fascinating to learn that #31 was the first to be restored.

Thanks for the update Kelly, the locomotive is further along than I would have guessed! I look forward to riding behind her whenever that is. In the meantime.. gotta get my money out of my annual pass behind the other 3! :)

Interesting, in 1960, when CNR 7312 came to Strasburg and became SRC 31, Reading had 3 T-1 4-8-4's in service, 0-6-0T 1251 was the daily shop shifter at Reading and CF&I Camelback 0-4-0 4 (P&R/RDG 1187) was in daily service at Birdsboro. You had the last of the first steam era and the first of the preservation era.

1251 and 4 are currently both in East Strasburg PA, across the street from each other.

Phil Mulligan

I'm sure its been brought up before, but is there any future for #4 at Strasburg? With how very rare they are now it appears that #4 is the most likely camelback to tell the story of these odd steamers. She is likely limited to hauling about 3 or 4 wooden coaches, but would definitely add to the Strasburg RR allure that attracts people imo.

The Strasburg Rail Road is a business, as opposed to a museum. For their management to want to sink the better part of a million dollars worth of cap-ex into an asset that needs virtually everything, there has to be a business case for it. Unfortunately, it's tough to put a dollar estimate on what the "allure" of that locomotive would add to the company's bottom line. It's just as simple as that.

Kelly - Sounds like a fun kind of busy from how you described it. Thank you for the interesting note on 31 detailing its important place in steam-era preservation history. There was at least one other steam locomotive being brought back into service for potential use in a heritage/tourist type operation that operated around the same time but on a much more limited basis and without ICC sanction.

With regards to the P&R Mother Hubbard, my limited understanding is that the ICC banned the production of steam locomotives having this configuration in the 1920's and most were converted to conventionally cabbed units. Is there anything in the current FRA or STB regulations that carries the ICC ban forward such that it would preclude returning a Mother Hubbard (Camelback) to service on a railroad, such as SRR, that interchanges with the general system?

This is not in any way meant as commentary on how a privately-held for-profit entity chooses to allocate its resources, nor is it to be construed as generally favoring operational restoration over static preservation.

.

As far as I know there is no "Federal presumption" that would forbid either returning a Camelback locomotive to service under part 230, or operating it. Here is my understanding of the logic (and a call for someone to produce the actual LIA-as-amended language):

First: ICC jurisdiction over locomotive safety essentially begins when the Boiler Inspection Act becomes the Locomotive Inspection Act (March 4th 1915, ch. 169 38 stat. 1192). It is then amended (my research indicates in 1924) to include a provision that the Commission can act if a design 'subjects employees or others to unnecessary peril of life or limb'.

The part of the ICC that is given specific enforcement authority under section 2 of the LIA, where this provision appears, had become the "Bureau of Locomotive Inspection" October 17, 1917, and I find no provisions of the Esch Act in 1920 (which gave us automatic train control and some other things in returning the railroads from Federal Control).

We find (I believe in argument of Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line, 272 US 605, in 1926) that the LIA by that time included specific language that the Bureau could "approve or deny design provisions submitted by locomotive manufacturers." Note that Napier v. ACL would later be cited as 'proof' of the ICC being given authority to require power reverse between 1933 and 1935, as in United States v. Baltimore and Ohio; essentially it established the 'constitutionality' of the provisions of the LIA as amended 1924). But there appears to be no precedent for any suit of 'like kind' to either the power-reverse or the stoker concerns over Camelbacks or their component parts ... which leads me very strongly to believe that the 'action' taken by the ICC in 1927 over Camelbacks is indeed a product of 'denying design proposals'.

I have not yet found specific mention of any safety-related action in any ICC reports for the fiscal year from June 30 1927 to June 30, 1928 (which would presumably cover 'enforcement action' for the L&NE 0-8-0s 120 to 122). There may be detail in the separate Bureau of Safety report for that period, or the BLI 'report of the chief inspector' -- anyone who finds those documents can read them and comment. But I think the fundamental 'power' to regulate Camelbacks comes out of that language in section 2 of the LIA as amended 1924, and the denial of design features mentioned in that amended version.

This fully explains why Camelbacks as built were exempted from either mandatory modification as well as why there are no court cases brought by 'employees or others' to demonstrate a direct 'unnecessary peril to life or limb' (and produce what might have developed as a more direct safety action, as certainly happened both for power reverses and stokers later in the 1930s).

Incidentally we had a thread on RyPN

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7715&start=15

that involved a comment by 'one not without authority on the line', as it were, regarding potential plans for this locomotive. Some of the points made there are of course still valid -- I would only point out how dramatically unlikely it would be for anyone in or out of the Government to attempt to assert some claim remaining under Part 230 to restrict Strasburg's very safe and very principled operation of a locomotive of this kind.

There were stories the ICC was not pleased in the 1920's when the Reading was rebuilding older engines into Camelbacks (NOT Mother Hubbards* on P&R/RDG), but no one could cite an actual rule.

There was a similar rumor that RDG had "made a deal" with the ICC to retire road Camelbacks by the end of 1948. Reading Shops rebuilt 30 T-1's in 1945-1947 (from 30 2-8-0's of similar continuous tractive effort), rebuilt 10 4-6-2's in 1947, rebuilt 30 2-8-0's and built 10 new 4-6-2's in 1948. They DID retire all the road Camelbacks by 12-31-1948.

In a Camelback, the engineer and fireman are separated by the firebox. The head brakeman is in the left cab on the other side of the boiler. They can't communicate with each other. Also, to back a road Camelback, the engineer usually sat on the cab armrest to see around the firebox. ** See CNJ 774 at Jersey City:

https://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=321557

Phil Mulligan

* since 2 of the 3 surviving Camelbacks are from DL&W and CNJ which DID call them Mother Hubbards I'll concede the term for them.

** P&R/RDG 1187/SRC 4 is an 0-4-0. These small engines do not have full width fireboxes and you can see back from the cab. 1187 as SRC 4 did work SRC passenger trains in the mid-1960's.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1437248

Kelly, please put me down as another who would love to see the last operational example of the Camelback back in service.

I had two experiences with Strasburg No. 4 in the short time it was in use. The first time, No. 4 was the road engine, but it needed help from the GE 44-tonner on the return trip. I believe No. 31 was undergoing a boiler wash and inspection. The second time, I believe it was the following year, the passing track in front of the station had not yet been lengthened, so the road engine cut off the train and pulled ahead onto the main. Then No. 4 backed out of the passing track and pulled the train into the station.

What do the interiors of the cabs and backheads look like on these things?